POLISCOPE
Back to bills

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
High Impact

Missouri bill establishes Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act to penalize illegal call masking and require call blocking

Original title: ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

Last action · February 18, 2026: HCS Reported Do Pass (H)Sponsors: Travis Wilson and 2 others

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Would Do

House Bill 2147 establishes the Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act, prohibiting callers from entering false caller identification information with intent to deceive and requiring voice service providers to block certain invalid or unallocated numbers by August 28, 2027. The measure prohibits targeting business and residential subscribers, expands the attorney general's no-call database enforcement powers, and establishes statutory fines and civil damages for violations.

Why it matters

Business and residential telephone subscribers gain statutory standing to sue callers using deceptive caller ID information for actual and punitive damages up to $5,000 per call, while telecommunication providers face mandatory call-blocking duties and state fines ranging from $25,000 to $75,000 for noncompliance.

Background
  • Call spoofing allows malicious telemarketers to falsify caller identification information to disguise their location or identity. context

Who It Would Affect

Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Business and residential telephone subscribers

Subscribers gain protections against call spoofing, the right to request call blocking for inbound-only numbers, and statutory standing to recover damages against fraudulent callers.

Directly affected

Voice service providers

Providers are mandated to block specific unauthorized or unallocated originating numbers, implement STIR/SHAKEN verification by August 2027, and face monetary fines for noncompliance.

Directly affected

Attorney General

The attorney general is granted expanded jurisdiction to enforce anti-spoofing provisions, collect statutory fines, and manage state no-call database listings.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is call spoofing under this bill?
is defined as the practice of knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, harass, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.
Can call recipients sue callers who use fake caller ID information?
Yes, recipients of calls utilizing false caller ID information have standing to recover actual and punitive damages up to $5,000 per call, and may bring class action lawsuits.
What are the deadlines for phone service providers to implement caller verification?
Voice service providers must implement the authentication protocol or a comparable alternative technology no later than August 28, 2027.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Where This Stands

Currently in committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.

Procedural history

8 actions
  1. Feb 18, 2026HouseCommittee
    HCS Reported Do Pass (H)
  2. Feb 18, 2026HouseCommittee
    HCS Voted Do Pass (H)
  3. Feb 18, 2026House
    Executive Session Completed (H)
  4. Jan 28, 2026House
    Public Hearing Completed (H)
  5. Jan 8, 2026HouseCommittee
    Referred: Utilities(H)
  6. Jan 8, 2026HouseFloor
    Read Second Time (H)
Show 2 earlier actions
  1. Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroduced
    Read First Time (H)
  2. Dec 3, 2025HouseIntroduced
    Prefiled (H)

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift98% confidence

Introduction of Mandated Provider Call Blocking

The bill shifts from permissive no-call rules to mandatory provider-level blocking of unallocated and inbound-only phone numbers.

Connected Entities

Joseph Engler, Travis Wilson, Marty Joe Murray and 3 more
PersonJoseph Engler“Chief Clerk of the House”Map →
PersonTravis Wilson“Representative for District 106 who introduced House Bill 2147”Map →
PersonMarty Joe Murray“Co-sponsor representing District 078”Map →
PersonMark Boyko“Co-sponsor representing District 090”Map →
OrganizationAttorney General“State official responsible for establishing the no-call database and enforcing a”Map →
OrganizationFederal Communications Commission“Federal regulatory agency overseeing telecommunications and national databases”Map →

Sources

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance75
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy25
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz30
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record